Title Page
 Annex A. Amendment: Organization...
 Annex B. Titles and relevant information...

Title: Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) assistance to the Proyecto de Tecnología para Pequeños Agricultores (PTPA)
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00082716/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) assistance to the Proyecto de Tecnología para Pequeños Agricultores (PTPA)
Series Title: Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) assistance to the Proyecto de Tecnología para Pequeños Agricultores (PTPA)
Physical Description: Book
Publisher: Unknown
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00082716
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 213486407

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 10a
        Page 11
        Page 11a
        Page 11b
        Page 11c
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
    Annex A. Amendment: Organization manual, Section 5, Chapter I and II
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    Annex B. Titles and relevant information of contracted and adaptive research
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
Full Text

* t

.o f ,

Farminq Systems Support Project F'SSP) Assistance

To The Proyecto de Tecnoloqia

Para Pequenos Agqricultores (P'TPA);

AID Project No. 526-T-029 in Paraguay

Review Team: Federico Poey, leader

*:iuan Carlaos Mart:i. nez
Ramiro O ti z

- i- .-~~-riiErr~-....~.--r-.~.-*-w~----~-- ----- ----~e -IU ---r----- -r--------- - ------~------ -1- I re

Page 2

Descri[)t ionn of Mfssicon !

it.e!: Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) assistance to

the Proyecto de lecnologia para Pequenos Agricultores

(PTPA); AID Project No. 526-T-029 in Para~ci.y,

ObUective: To assess on-farm-research and extension

components to suggest alternative operational adjustments

for the terminal phase of the project.

Sqcoe of Work:" To review PTPA's Operation Manual, Mid-term

Evaluation Report, AID Project Paper on Small Farm

Technology, and existing organization and methodology for

the generation, validation and recommendation of new

technologies within the research and extension activities.

Duratign: June 13 to July 2, 198:3

E i.egw .Iea i~.: FPederico Poey, Breeder-Seeds specialist.,


Juan Carlos Martinez, Economist

Ramiro Ortiz, Agronomist

-~.--l;^~l.l-r~i*ir -. -----lil_r-Li-r;-ru.. I I 1- -- -;-- -CI-x,r-,.riirr---c :~._..,. ii..--~ :i.... ...ilrrel-riii~;-r.ir-rii-O*-~rii~LY1* ilr~n~i-,*:ii .r-:~-C1YL~-:

Paqe 3















Agency for International Development

Centro Regional de Investigacion Agricola

Central Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito

Centro Regional de Desarrollo Rural

Escuela Agromecanica de Caoacupe

Farming Systems Support Project

Institute Aqronomico Nacional

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia

On-Farm Research

Proyecto de Tecnologia para Pequenos Agricultores

Servicio de Extencion Agricola Ganadera

Servicio Nacional de Semillas

Texas A & M University

Page 4


1. Overview

2. Introduction

3. Relevant Background

3.1 Origin and Objective of PTPA

3. 2 Operational Procedure

3.3 Present Status

4. Evaluation of Documents

4.1 PTPA Organization and Operational Manuals

4.2 Mid-Term Evaluation Report

4.3 AID Project Paper on Small Farm Technology

5. Organizational and Methodological Patterns

5.1 Methodology and Procedures

5.2 Administrative Procedures for Research Project.

Approval and Budget Allocation.

5.3 Operational Issues in Experimental Strategy and Trial


5.4 Economic Evaluation of Contracted and Adaptive

Experimental Results

5,; 5 Frans re nce of Tfchno i.ogq,.y with inyitffi -cient Research


5.6 Research Center Activities

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

7. References


A. Amendment: Orqanization Manuals, Section 5,

Page 5

Chapters 1 and 2.

Hi. Iitles and Relevant Information of Contracted and

Adaptive Research

C. Persons and Institutions Visited

.-.. ;. . . .-Li.l^. r._-(. :.~~.._.-I

Page 6


the PTPA project, financed by a $5 million loan and a

$1 million grant in 1979 had a major objective of involving

the small farmer in the process of generation and adaptation

of technology. Lack of early leadership with experience in

the field re-sulted in an overst.tructured cr-q...niz ati on with

strong Administration, Communication, Proqramminq and

Evaluation and 'raining Divisions and a subordinated

Technical Support Division that had no decision capacity.

None of three international full-time advisors from TAMU

were assigned to the Technical Support Division.

Specialists and extension agents attended to small farmers

through "committee groups" of some 20 farmers in each of the

seven regional centers.

e weak mechanism of technology generation carried on

experimental stations by contract is followed by an on-farm

adaptive research evaluation in one or very few locations

followed by demonstration plots. A "pilot project" concept

sometimes may reduce the number of states mentioned. In

every case t:h, number of locaCians i.too low to. mk-,

reliable recommendations. At so, the decisions on problem

identification and research opportunity, as well as

experimentation methodology is originated at the specialist

and agent level who send their suggested "protocol" to

headquarters in Asuncion. After receiving suggested

modifications, primarily on the experimental design chosen.,

the experiment is established. The project is centered


around food crops planted by small farmers-. Institutional

research on these crops is Limited as priority is given to

export crops.

Suggested recommendations included strengthening the

Technical Support Division to expand the adaptive research

sub-programs with more locations and specialists and to

reinforce problem identification and investigation

methodology with more active integration of the centrally

located specialists.

Based on the potential of CIMMYT's experimented maize-

variaties demonstrated in experimental station trials for

two years, it was suqqested to initiate coordinated on-farm

regional variety trials to be implemented in all the regions

as a catalytic sub-program that could serve to initiate and

motivate the review team's recommendations. It is expected

that the superiority of the experimental varieties will

produce an impact on the small farmers' practices that would

credit future actions of the extension service.

Paqe 8


The members of the review team participated in small

group seminars at the University of Florida in Gainesville

to be briefed on the FSSP objectives and philosophy and to

receive guidelines for the mis-sion in Paraguay. The field

work in Paraquay w;as conducted from .Tune 15 to July 2, 1983.

The review team evaluated pertinent documents and

visited the SEAG's central office and regional centers,

small farmer fields, and the MtA research centers.

This report is divided in the follow.inq topics:

I. Overvi e~w

2. Introduction

3. Relevant Background

4. Evaluation of Documents

5. Organizational and Methodological Patterns

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

7. References

- ~l--~L~___-~~il~-^I.-__LI-IL-_- i

Page 9


3.1 Origin and objectives of PTPA

The Small Farmr Technoloqy Project (PTPA) was initiated

in 1979 as the result of an agreement between the government

of Paraquay and the government of the United States of

America, represented by MAG and AID, respectively.. This

project would be the responsibility of SEAG, receiving

financial support in order to establish a decentralized

administrative structure that would facilitate its

operational activities. TAMU assisted in the implementation

of the Project, assigned three international full-time

advisors and attended seven candidates in post-graduate


The general objective of the project was the

identification, generation, adaptation and diffusion of

appropriate technological innovatios that fit in the

production systems of small, limited resource farms of

Paraguay. In this process the farmers would play a major

role in each phase of the project.. The small farm crop

research comipoOnent Wias to he reinforced in ith:er than

traditional export crops such as cotton, soybeans, and

tobacco. To reach this objective an institutional strategy

was designed which included the following action-oriented

support decisions:

A. Modification of operational structure: Seven

Regional Rural Development Centers (CRDR) would be

Page 10

established (Fiq. 1) and an administrative division would be

created in SEAG's central headquarters. This

decentralization had its purpose in giving the regional

centers and their local agencies the means to execute

promptly their activities through adequate local

administrative support.

B. Support sub-programs: These were included as vital

components of the project to support SEAB's Proqram of

iechnoloqgv infusion through activities in specific areas

and financed through PTPA funds:

i. Adaptive and Contracted* research: On-farm

experimental and demonstrative activities

conducted by the regional centers and their local

agencies, and the execution of specific research

projects in experiment stations by the

agricultural research institutions, respectively.

ii. Improved seeds: SENASE would be in charge of the

supervision, production, distribution and sale of

seeds of the improved varieties and hybrids

developed and/or successfully tested by the

research stations and regional centers. A

revolving tunrd w:iou.i. d be made available to SENASE

from the project funds.

iii. Rural administration: Ai project started in 1975,

through an agreement between AID and MAG, would be

incorporated into the operational activities of

SEAi as to support PTPA's Technology Diffusion


FIG. 1




5-. 0



- I\

Page 11

iv. Small Farm Machinery Deeleopment: This unit would

be established in the EAC through a sub-agreement

between SEAG and EAC assigning project resources,

specifying operating criteria, and establishing

administrative and procedural arrangements.

C. Development of a plan to.implement and strengthen

the operative efficiency of SEAG through resident and

short-term consultants, trai-inin of technical and

administrative personnel, logistic support for the different

levels trf the PTF'A and increasing personnel.

3.2 Operational procedures

Although SEAG organizationally is under the Directorate

of Research and Ex;tensi.on, operationally it receives

direct instructions and communicate frequently with the

Minister of Agriculture and .Livestock (see Fiq. 2). SEAG .is

headed by a Director assisted by an Adjunct director, it has

+ive major central support divisions: Technological

Support, Programming and Evaluation, Training,

Communications and Administration (see Fig. 3 and 3A). The

position of the Director is directly over and linked to the

Supp rvi sin zones and CDR:', with a cooidi nator for PTPA

directly responsible. Local agencies constitute the final

stage or level in the organizational structure of SEAG.

The PTPA has provided SEAG .with the opportunity to

strengthen the Central Divisions, but thus far the

Technological Support Division has not been affected. New

personnel has been added to these four divisions, including

; _i_~_I _~ rLi Li^S^I I_ ~- .I I-

FIG. 2. Organigram of the Ministry of Agriculture








FIG. 3. Organ!gram of SEAG describing delivery network











Vei(cle Admiin.* Credit Agro Direct Tech. Conmmun. Program AdaLptive
Ma fintenaiice Support Coordtrinu Lil Siupply Service Support Support Evaluation Investigat.
IIi t1 lilts Units Unite Ag nt8 Unl te U itt UJillts iIln ts

1I I





L I Ill I m




FIG. 3a At Orgaiigrami of SLAG describingRDR Part.icpi Llion,

1/ Centro Regional de Desarrollo Rural del PTPA.

Page 12

three resident international advisors from TAMU. These have

been appointed to the Communications, Progranmminq and

Eval uat ion Di visions and to the- Coordi nation:

(Administration) of the PTPFA,, Currently, at the regional

level, si- CRDR's are operating with a total of 53 local

agencies organizationally annexed to them. One more CRDR

has been contemplated i.n the project and it will begin its

active ties in 1984,, About 58,'c000 small farms would be

covered by the project.

A great concentration of small farms has been the main

criterion in selecting a region for the creation of a CRDR.

Each center has a Head (agronomist) and a team of

specialists (crops, agricultural economics, livestock., and

home economics) supported by a programming evaluator, an

administrator and a communications specialist. Each local

agency has at least a head agent (crops), a home economics

agent and a youth clubs (4-H) agent.

In conclusion, the creation of the CRDR's is the most

important aspect of the PTPA along with intended

participation of the farmer in determining the constraints

prevalent in the small farms. This along with the fact that

adapt-ive r-search was to be conducted in representative

farms of each area and working directly with the farmer

gives F'F'A the potent ality to generate appropriate

technology for the small farms.of Paraguay.

3.3 Present Status

Several issues have arisen that contrast in form and

_ _I ~_(~I ______~ ~ t ~ _( I.il.-i i.. Il

Page 13

intensity with what had been expected and prevent PTPA from

reaching its goals. However, a most positive aspect has

been identified in the regional organization of the PTPA:

the desire and motivation among the specialists and agents

at the regional level in conducting their activities. The

potential success of the project lies on the training and

adequ-a.te techni ca.l and e:conrcni c support otf thei- r-eq it na.l.


The major constraints identified are of the most

diverse nature, but they can be grouped into two major

categories: organizational and methodological.

A. Organizational constraints

:i. An administration role has been qiven to the

coordination of the PTPA preventing the

coordinator and the resident consultants from

having a more frequent and technical contact with

the CRDR'"s which is mostly needed" true leadership

in the project is still to be found,

ii. The Technical Support Division has been the only

one where personnel has not been increased and the

one that. in.eded :it the mOst. e'i other haf s a-%ny,

international advisors been assigned to it.

Besides this, there is little evidence of the

involvement of experts from this division in the

operational activities of'the PTPA at the regional

level. These reasons have determined the lack of

technical depth in the activities of th CRDR's and

deficiencies in the process of generating and

._ 1_1__ 1 __1~___~II Y~ I _;__YI__IX__ULU____UIIYILILI

Paqe 14

adapti ng techno. ogi cal inn oviat:i aons,

iii. Decentralization of activities has not been

achieved in the expected measure, The specialists

from the CRDR's still have to submit each of their

field project proposals to the coordination of

PTPA in the central headquarters and wait for

their approval along iith the liberation of funds

from the Administration Division in order to.begin

their work. -

iv. Insufficient funds have been assigned and; this h.s

maintained the size of the research activities

below the critical mass required to achieve

meaningful results in the adaptation of new,

techno oqy.

B. Methodoloqical constraints

i. Research priorities should be established in basis

o+ the importance and frequency of an identified

constraint across the small farms in the region.

Instead, research projects are determined most of

the times by the observation capacity of an agent

in his work area and a psecia-ist that. is called

up-,on for advice h:is simple asystem:atic

procedure causes the undertaking of projects that

may. easily be of no relevance to most of the farms

in the region and more important constraints may

be o:erl looked,

ii. Farmers.in the region have little involvement in

establishing research prior ti es. This is a

Page 15

consequence of the previously explained

methodological constraint. Only a few farmers,

the ones usually working with an agent, are

usually surveyed in assessing the ex;istance of a

prob 1 em.

ThIese issues iwil! be : further discussed in other

sections of this report al. ong with- the fo llowinq constraints

that are now stated in their simplest form:

a. Limited multidisciplinary interaction in the

identification of research priorities.

b. Confusion in the conceptual understanding of the

different phases of the generation and adaptation of new


c. Persistance and/or acceptance by the PTPA of the

"technology package" approach over the generation of simple

technological alternatives.

d. Definition of training priorities.is inconsistent in

its organization and should be based upon a study that

identifies the areas where PTPA needs strenqtheninq.


_ ___ ____.__L ii _r I_ 1_11 _r _ ___ i _ll~;___~___~~I__ _~II~_ ~__I _~_L_


4.1 PF'sTF'P Orq.ani. nation and Operational Manual

This three-volume manual was published in 1980 as a

working document that determines the hierarchical

organization and objectives of FIPA and also the activities

and areas of responsibility for each sector of the project

estabi ish:ing a rational integrati on aimonq them in order to

achieve the institutional qoals. The criteria, procedures,

and methodological aspects are also defined in order to

serve as guidelines in the operational phase of each sector.

A review of Section 5, Chapter I and II, Volume III of

the manual was included in the scope of work. This portion

describes concepts, procedures, and methodologies involved

in contracted and adaptive research, pilot projects, and

demonstration plots. This section has already been amended

in January 1982 due to the confusion that existed in

conceptualizing some of these states in the technology

generationand adaptation process. The forthcoming comments

are made based on this amendment, which is included in Annex


4.1.1 Contracted research.

It is defined as a study conducted in an experimental

area of a research institution to generate possible

solutions for a problem already identified by a CRDR and

approved by the Coordinati on of PF'TP as relevant to the

farming systems of the region. Through an agreement

Page 17

previously established between SEAG and the research

institution, a contract is issued by which SEAG will provide

the financial support and the other institution provides the

experimental area and conducts the study. Usually, only one

experiment is conducted with no limitations for the number

of treatments to be included and with the appropriate

expert mental design. Researchers carry on total

responsibility and the team of CRDR specialists only

collaborate providing the necessary information on the

problem to design the experiment.

In the amendment, no emphasis is put on the fact that

the specialists should follow closely the development of

these experiments and not only wait for the partial or final

reports. This would give them the opportunity to acquire

valuable experience in research procedures and trial

management along with first-hand knowledge of the generated

technology. A critical aspect that has been overlooked is

that the two experiment stations where most of the

contracted research is being conducted (Caacupe and Capitan

Miranda. are not representative of the conditions prevalent

in the s!ital 1 fars of the ares for whi h Ithe resul ~ts are

presumably valid. Climatic conditions may be similar but

sil and management factors show great variability across

each region. Research that includes variables that are

affected by the variability in soil-and management factors

(e.g. fertilizers, *weed control. should be moved out of the

stations and conducted on farms. On-farm contracted

research has started to be conducted by researchers in the

Page 18

Caacupe area,,

4.1.2 Adaptive research.

It is defined as a qroup of potential solutions to a

problem identified in a region that is evaluated at the farm

level by the specialists of the CRDP. The results from

previous basic research and contracted research projects

provide a set of promising technologies that in reduced

number are matched against a "check" treatment (the

traditional technology of the region).

Adaptive research trials are the responsibility of

specialists of the CRDR's that are assisted by research

advisors in the process of design and evaluation of the

trial. The cooperating farmer and local extension agents

are involved in each phase of the trial.

Although on-farm research in qi vinq PIPA the

opportunity to identify solutions through evaluation under

real conditions, there are several aspects that limit the

strength of the adaptive as well as contracted research

concept. Two of these limitations are the reduced number of

trials and the management of non-experimental variables at

:n o.ptir.m. level. In nios c-ss only one contracted

research (one trial) provides the information from where

treatments are selected for adaptive research, and in this

following phase only one trial in one farm is established.

From this limited evaluation, a new technology with

insufficient evidence of its adaptation potential may be

selected to be promoted in demonstration plots. The other

Page 19

limitation related to the non-experimental variables managed

at a level different than the farmers' practices hinders the

reliability of the final recommendation. It should be

recognized that managing those variables at optimum

conditions makes new technology reliable only when those

conditions can be met, which may not be the case in small

farms. Henceforth, this newi technology has low adaptation

and adoption potent als.,,

One alternative to increase the number of farms covered

in an adaptive research project, is establishing one

replication per farm. This strategy would enable the

selected newi technology to better meet variable conditions.

Another alternative is selecting the minimum size plot for

each treatment to record the required observations which may

result in maximizing available resources to increase the

number of replications.

4.1.3 Pilot Projects.

The sub-program covers the introduction of new

promising technologies into a region without any previous

evaluation under the prevalent agro-cli matic conditions. A

pilto1t projiec:t is conducted An a farm w.i t h a research

specialist taking responsibility for its management. The

f~imers and local agents can be coll aborators through

different stages of this trial.. Because nf its innovative

nature, this new technology is not compared to a "local"

check and it usually consists of more than one component and

an economic analysis is performed. Technologies for

livestock production are mostly evacuated in pilot pro jets.

When the evaluation is over and if the new-technology is

economically "successful," this set of practices will be

included in a demonstration project and its use will be

promoted among the farmers of the region.

An important aspect to he considered in the conduction

for the evaluation of crop production practices that are

risky in the sense of their adaptation to the local

environment. It must be remembered that a failure in a farm

activity will always be a long step backward in gaining the

farmers' confidence. These types of technologies should

always be screened first in an experiment station of the

region or in land rented by the specialists. If there is a

failure then, it can always be kept "with-in the family."

On the other hand, technoloq es for livestock production may

be better suited for this type of evaluation.

It is not clear yet how it is decided that a new

technology has the potential to fit the local conditions and

that it will improve economically the existing farming

stems. Neither has the role that the farmer- plays in

selecting the technologies, to be included in the pilot

project, been defined. Emphasis should be made in defining

what type of conditions should exist in a region and what

type of characteristics should a new technology have in

order to be included there. It is also important to

identify what type of limitations would restrict its use.

Without the farmers' participation and a clear definition of

Pane 20

Page 21

the reliability of the technology, the pilot project

currently constitutes a rural development activity rather

than an integral phase of the process for the generation and

adaptation of technology for small farms.

4.1.4 Demonstration Projects.

Successful technologies evaluated through adaptive

research or a pilot project will then be included in a

demonstration project in a farm and is compared to the

farmers' traditional technology. The objective here is to

promote the use of the new technology under the assumption

that it will perform better than the local check. The local

agent and the coll aborating farmer will manage this trial

and a CRDR specialist will assist them in the design.

Groups of farmers are invited to visit the demonstration

plot and they are briefed on the new technology.

The great potential limitation that hinders the success

of a demonstration plot is the fact that the new technology

has been evaluated in only one farm in the previous stage.

In the case of crop production practices, this is rot enough

evidence h =t the tec::'hnoloq:v w:i. ll perform ,we ll in the farms.-.

of the area sin-ce the existing variability was not properly


Another limitation, which is related to the adoption

process, is that the farmer has very little participation in

the whole process just as it is now designed. There is not

a stage where he manages and evaluates by himself alone the

ne-w technology to give an estimate of its adoption

Page 22

potential. Without giving him more participation the whole

process may be heading in the wrong direction and the result

could be an unreliable technology with no acceptability from

the people for whom it was generated.

4.2 Mid-'lerm Evaluation Report

On July 2, 1982 Fret es and associ ados, a lIocal

consulting firm conducted a thorough evaluation of the PFTP

project which concentrated on financial and operational

aspects. The terms of reference included specific

evaluation guidelines and other organization and operational

documents. The aspects related to the generation,

validation, and recommendation of new technology were

considered in relation to number of units achieved versus

programmed, but practically no assessment was made on the

quality and adequacy of these aspects.

The report establishes, however, a weak technical

component in the overall institutional organization as a

consequence of strengthening the Divisions of

Administration, Programming and Evaluation, Training, and

Conmmunica.i ons in contrast to the Di:vision of T'echnical.

Support, which was not even included as a subject to be

evaluated in the guidelines given.

Some of the main conclusions mention a generally slow

process as evidenced by delays in signing and implementing

the project,, slow utilization of AIDl. funds, restrictions in

assigning local funds, and the overall complexity and

innovative nature of the project. A lack of conceptual

Paqe 23

clarity of the objectives and components of the research

sub-proqram is mentioned as a major cause for delaying the

initiation of adaptive research for almost three years.

However, it considered satisfactory the number of pilot

projects and demonstration plots (13 and 64 respectively for

year 2). The review team considered the number too small;

even the number of plots programmed, 15 and .113 respectively

for one year, is considered too low, especially because they

include- various crops and different types of projects.

It must be realized, however, that the CRDR personnel

also have responsibilities in handling livestock, farm

management and home economics projects which takes up to 50

percent of their time and resources.,

A solution to the lack o-f conceptual -clarity was

attempted through an amendment to the Organization and

Procedures Manual that: establishes the new concept of

"Contracted Research" (to the experimental stations) and

strengthens the "Adaptive Research" concept (see Annex A).

The review team considers that the diversity and nature

of the projects being contracted, which originate by a very

specii c local int rest of t.he more m ;a. Ivated extension

agents and/or special its, reflect a lack of priority

definition and questionable experimental procedures. Titles

and relevant information of "Contracted and Adaptive

Projects" are included in Annex B.

Some recommendations of the report, mention training of

CRDR heads and specialists in the interpretation of research

components and improving the supervision and control

.r^VII~C-V--JI"~V-- I* 'L'~-"-~- ~Lur-; ------i-- i rr-L';-il--i;- ';L----~~ ~-~~Y-~L---rrsrWij----;-r~-rir------i-

Paqe 24

systems. It also suggests the appointment of a coordinator

to handle research and related activities.

Regarding the technical assistance, the report finds

that the achievements of resident and short term advisors

were adequate in quality but not in numbers. This

conclusion was stained according to the goals set for

assistance in communications, administration, programming

and evaluation, livestock, home economics, and training.

However, the review team considers the assistance in

crop on-farm research requires a much higher Jevel than what

was originally defined. This limitation reflects the lack

of early leadership in procuring the objectives of the

project related to the small farmers' participation in these


this study recommended to e; tend the life span of the

project for two additional years. AID agreed to make the

extension for one year, considering that their local office

is programmed to be closed by then.

4.3 AID Project Paper Small Farm Technologyi

This document def .i ned a.s AID/LACF /P-01 15 FPr o i ect nLtnmb::er

526--c01lr0 defines the goals and purpose of the project with a

detailed feasibility analysis, financial plans, and project

implementation conditions that originated the PTPA project.

The project was estimated to be operative in the last

quarter of 1979 with a financial assignment of (U.S.) $5

million loan and a $1 million grant, both from AID. The

hast country was committed to finance another $3,657,200 in

Page 25

local currency Q equivalent.

The $5 million loan w.as assigned in the following


SEAG's operating costs and investments

Small farm machinery development

Seed revolving fund

- '-rch operation

Trai ning

Tech. assistance, consultants and specialists

Inflation and other



450, 000

140,000 .

442, 400



The $1 million grant was assigned to resident advisors (8

man years), short-term consultants (141 man months) and

other related costs,

The $3,657,2:00 equivalent in local currency was

assigned to increment project related salaries, operating

and other costs, inlcuding adjustments for inflation.

In reviewing the document, it is evident that certain

expectations did not materialize or can be considered

incongruent with the general objectives of the project.

For e-:emple the al .1 location of $140:,000 for research

operations seems inadequate considering the relatively high

nuL..~ber of locations and personnel that should be involved in

the on-farm activities.

But even the limited number of potent ial activities

were not executed. The project rationale was that a

prominent part of the activities were to be of promising

alternatives under the small farmers' own management. The

Page 26

explanation given for this serious limitation was, first, a

lack of clear concept of research and evaluation, and later

the solution reached to contract research which puts it back

in the experiment station.

Regarding training opportunities, the project calls for

some 43 local course, 15 observations or workshop trips, plus

30 other trips to short-term formal. courses of six to 12

weeks duration, all with amrpl.e budgets. This opportunity

has been used well in numbers, but hardly no particular

activity related to on-farm research was apparently held,

reflecting again the relative low priority assigned to this

objective of PTPA.

The lonq-term training assignment opportunities to

Master of Science degrees has been practically executed.

However, all candidates were concentrated in only one

university which prevents a wider interaction with other

on-going academic orientations.

Regarding the technical assistance in the project, a

permanent extension specialist was assigned to the SEAG's

Programming and Evaluation Division. This arrangement has

been instrumental in diverting the specialist's attention

from the more creative agronomic assistance. required for the

proper development of the on-farm research program, His

particular assistance should be strongly focused to advise

the generally young and inexperienced agents and specialists

of the regional centers in the adequate identification and

conduction of the fie ld trials.

The seed component of the PTPA deserves close analysis,,

Paq e 27

The original project assigned SENASE with the responsibility

to supervise, produce and deliver seeds to .the small farmers

of the Project. However, the real contribution of SENASE to

the project has been minimal. Very low, volumes of seeds

handled indicate inefficient use of the $450,000 revolving

fund assigned. This situation could be explained by the

fact that the "improved varieties" of maize, cowpea and peas

are not really better than the farmers' own varieties.

SENASE-'s handling of those seeds only improve the

germination and physical purity, but seldom can this

handling alone improve the yield potential enough to justify

purchase of new seed every year. The distinction between

"improved seed" and "improved variety" has to be clearly

understood. Furthermore, improved varieties should be

evaluated and accepted by the small farmer before he

considers to purchase seed in the market. If the variety is

proven superior to his own, even small farmers who are used

to save their own seed will buy it to plant part of their

field or to renew a portion of their seed needs.

Getting the small farmer to use seed of improved

varieties is a difficult task. It can be achieved, however,

through the invol ve.-ent of selected fa" irmers of thA community

that can be motivated to establish a "cottage industry" type

of'seed activity with some outside guidance and equip ment

service. By this strategy the economic incentive can be

present, the final selling price of the seed would be lower,

and the subsidy cost only necessary as it relates to the

support activity.

Page 28


The field work of the Review Team included visits to

the Regional Centers of Ita, Coronel Bogado, Ybycui and

Cordillera and to the Research Centers of IAN in Caacupe and

CRIA in Capitan Miranda. The activities involved in each

case included joint meeting ls, ith directives and staff,

visits to the extension agencies, the on-far.m and station

trials, and conversations with farmers.(1)

Regarding the organization of the CRDR, they basically

replicate at the regional level the pattern of organization

of the PTPA at the national level. Accordingly, in addition

to the Regional Head, the local teams include specialists in

agronomy, livestock, agricultrual economics, programming.,

communication, and home economics. These specialists are

normally located in the regional headquarters supporting the

activities of the different extension agencies under the

jurisdiction of the Center.

The agronomy and livestock specialists appear to be the

personnel more involved with the limited OFR operations of

1 ) In terms of Contracted and Ada -tie Research, the CP.OR's

centers visited represented 95 percent of the research

trialss) conducted in 1982/83. The remaining 5 percent was

at the time of the review in the flooded lands-of Neembucu.

the centers. They provide the (limited) liason with JIAN and

CRIA in the case of contracted research; are responsible for

the Adaptive. Research and Pilot Projects, and support the

Demonstration Plots which are more in the hands of extension

agents. The economists seem to be more concentrated in farm

management issues rather than being involved in the process

of generation-adaptati on of technology. The discussions

with the regional staff were centered around the OFR

activities of the centers, including the links with

experiment station research done by IAN and CRIA. From

these discussions, the major areas of concern appear to be:

1. Methodology and procedures for identification of research.

2. Administration procedures for research project approval and

budget location.

3. Operational issues in experimental strategy and trial


4. Economic evaluation of contracted and adaptive experimental


5, transference of .technology with insufficient research


5.1 Methodology and Frocedu.res for Identification of

Research Opportunities

Research opportunities are identified at the regional

level as a result of a process which relies heavily on the

perception of individual staff members, either agent of

specialists. Regional staff have developed a so called

"situation study" which attempts to provide an

agro-socioeconomic description of the area of influence of

the Center. [his has been initially implemented in each

center through a type of non-systematic informal survey.

More recently a standardized formal questionnaire (designed

for all regions by the Central Programming Division) has

been implemented by some of the centers and presumably will

be completed by all the regionals in the near future. (2)

Regarding the design of the questionnaire, it is sufficient

to say that it is a comprehensive one, with 31 pages,

covering education, land tenancy, assets, production

activities, technology and value of production, technical

assistance, housing, and family households. The Review Team

estimates that an appropriate filling of this questionnaire

should take between two and three hours. In any case, it

seems that this effort in developing "situation studies"

concentrates in the descriptive aspects with only weak (if

any) links with the process of generation of technology.

(2) Situation studies and formal surveys are contemplated in

the operational manual.

Page 30

Paqe 31

Research opportunities are then defined in bottom up

approach of additive nature. Research projects (trials)

evolve from a cumulative and non-articulated process in

which, through regional staff perceptions, what appears to

be a critical problem is addressed with one trial proposal

(normally isolated) which presumably could provide a

solution to the problem in question. The conclusion then is

that no systematic procedure exists to derive research

opportunities from problem identification done at the

regional level.

As a result of the situation described above,

Contracted Research conducted in 1982/83 covers nine

different experimental variables (associated with the

different research opportunities identified) which were

addressed with only 10 trials, while the figures for

adaptive research are eight experimental variables and 11

trials (See Annex B).

The figures above confirm the perception of the Review

Team that research efforts are not concentrated in a minimum

set of technological components (priorities) but rather

disperse in a wide ranqe of them in such deIree ihat

experimental variables involved are far from beirn covered

by a minimum number of trials required to formulate farmer

recommendations. The total annual number of trials

conducted in all PTPA would be appro ximately the number

required to adequately cover UFR for only one ta-get crop in

only one of the seven regions involved.

In summary, identification of research oppo-tunities

Page 32

has not and will not result in concentration of OFR efforts

in a minimum set of research priorities unless current

procedures for problem identification are adjusted and

operationally strengthened.

f5.2 Administrative Procedures for Research Project Approval

and Budget Allocation

The procedures described above result~ in research

proposals originated at local level, normally involving only

one trial. These research proposals follow an

administrative channel which goes from the regional Head of

CRDR to the National Coordinator of PTPA; the Programming

Division for review, the National Director of PTPA ,for final

approval and to Administration for final budget allocation.

Technical review is done at the Programming Division. rhis

is done most of the time by just checking in the

headquarters office written "protocolos" including the

proposal. It appears rather evident that the staff involved

can hardly judge on the selection of research opportunities

(as opposed to alternatives not included in the proposal)

just reading the protocollo" The same is true for issues

,of: e::per:imental stratey and trial managementn. ILt looks

that these matters should be discussed and clarified at

regional levels, in the field, with direct and live

participation of headquarters staff. "lhe young (and

relatively inexperienced) regional specialists from the

centers are enthusiastic about their research work and will

clearly welcome effective technical support on the diverse

technical problems that they necessarily have to confront in

their field work with or without support.

In any case, it looks like the screening process

conducted in the Programming Division is strongly based on

issues of experimental design. (3) Given that no particular

reason was found to explain this bias, it may have resulted

from the disciplinary comparative advantage of the staff

involved. It is clear that a reasonable experimental design

would be a necessary yet not sufficient condition +or proper

OFR orientation. Futhermore, even in this area, the limited

technical interaction between headquarter and regional staff

in the planning process may result in inappropriate

recommendations for setting the trial. One example may help

to illustrate this point. One of the centers proposed to

conduct a trial on onions being liming the experimental

variable addressed to neutralize soil acidity and aluminum

toxicity. Basic design proposed completely randomized

blocking with four replications. Some delay in the planning

process lead the regional director to proceed with planting

before it was too late while attempting to finalize the

technical approval process by phone. In a phone call to the

Programming Division, the bulk of the discussion referred to

>3).Notice that a perfectly designed set of trials addressed

to a non-critical technological component could be a

rigorous exercise in futility, which in any case will not

significantly contribute to increase productivity and income

of representative area farmers.

Faqe 34

the issue of experimental design., In particular, since the

plot was assumed to be homogeneous, headquarters strongly

argued for a completely randomized design (no blocking) in

order to increase degrees of freedom of the error. On the

other side, the center director attempted to argue for the

blocking since the trial was already being planted with the

original ly proposed design. The cent-er director did not

completely understand all the arguments of statistical

"purity" given by headquarters and had to give up to a final

decision in which project proposal was rejected due to

inappropriatee" design. The fact that the trial had been

planted anyway gave the Review Team the chance to see what

was actually happening in the field.

The visit to the trial revealed that plot topography

was indeed slightly inclined and blocking was appropriate.

However, blocking had been done in strips parallel to the

gradient instead of across the gradient. In addition, the

presence of one tree was affecting one of the blocks. The

way the planning process set up implied that headquarters'

staff could not be aware of these details. In addition, the

.trial could have been broken in two tri als of two

replications each in different locations increasing the

poqer to extrapolate results with a similar amount of

research resources. Finally, experimental plot size could

have been reduced (considering the amount of labor involved

in transplanting) without sacrificing precision for yield


Paqe 35

5.3 Operational Issues in Experimental Strategy and Trial


Experimental design, number of sites and replication

per site, level of experimental and non-experimental

variables, hypothesis about relevant interactions and iways

of capturing them through research, articulation of

technological components in different sets of trials, are

all part of the issues- normal. y discussed in planning and

executing on-farm research ex-periments.

In the particular case of PTPF some of the issues

deserve to be considered. Experimental design as related to

the planning process was already mentioned in the previous

section. With regard to number of sites and replications

there has been an emphasis on the second element while

practically ignoring the first one. A research opportunity

is normally incorporated in the research program through a

unique trial with about four replications per site. It

appears to be evident tha there is much to be gained in

these circumstances by decreasing replications and

increasing number of trials.. The need to extrapolate

results in recommendations requires to capture across-site

v=iari.i.abiit in combined t stati -ti caj analysis. Farmer

recommendations can never be made on the basis of only one


Finally, non-experimental variables should, in general,

be fixed as close as possible to the prevailing farmer

practices.- By doing so, the response obtained in the trial

for the different treatments will more closely approximate

Page 36

the response that the farmer would have.

5.4 Economic Evaluation of Contracted and adaptive

Ex perimentra Results

It appears that no economic analysis of experimental

result is carried in the case of Contracted and Adaptive

Research. F or advancig -n recommendations to be incorporated

into Demonstrations or Pilot Project, this analysis will be

required. A simple partial budgeting technique will suffice

to accomplish this task:. The method of economic evaluation

of experimental results should be easily accessible to the

non-economist specialists in the regional teams.(4) In any

case, analysis should be performed estimating marginal

benefits and costs taking farmer practice as a starting


5.5 Transference of rechnoloqy with Insufficient Research


here have been cases along the Pt'PA execution in which

technologies not validated through on-farm research were

m'ade avi hi.e to armers through i I.ot Pro je s,

Demonstrations, and/or untested recommendations (i.e, case

(4) A simple and widely diffused methodology could be found

in Perrin et al 1976. Formulacion de Recomendaciones a

Partir de Datos Agronomicos: Un Manual Metodologico de

Evaluacion Economica. CIMMYT, 1978.

of "improved" variety of peas where low germinating seed of

an unaccepted variety was amply distributed). Even though

this may be based on a legitimate attempt of speeding up

diffusion of improved technologies, it involves the

extensionists in a high risk venture that may compromise, in

case of failures.

5.6 Research Center Activities

Both IAN at Caacupe and CRIA at Captian Miranda have

strongly defined priorities for crops that contribute to

improve the national foreign exchange situation. These are

cotton, tobacco, soybean and wheat. Crops common to small

farmers as maize, cassava, rice, cowpea, dry beans, banana,

etc., receive only limited attention and practically no

on-farm activities are carried on with these crops. Maize

and cassava represent the number 1 and 2 crops of importance

from the small farmers viewpoint. There is a national

estimate of 400,000 has. of maize and a significant area of

cassava grown practically all by small farmers all over the


fhe maize program has rceiv ed col lacboration from

CIMfMYT during the last few years besides counseling from an

international resident advisor from IiCA that is now

completing his term. At the research centers, CIMMYT's

experimental varieties have demonstrated excellent

superiority over the standard local variety currently

recommended. For two years, practically all of CIMMYT's

experimental varieties yielded above the check, often more

Paqe :38

than double, were dramatical ly earlier to -flowering, as much

as 20 days, and invariably lower in plant and ear height.

Many of CIMHMY 's experimental varieties have grain

characteristics undistinquishable from the local varieties.

It is the opinion of the Review feam that this

information justifies an immediate recommendation to advance

a selection of some of those varieties to be included in an

extensive farm evaluation process. Simultaneously,--initial

seed multiplication should be started for further commercial

production of the ones eventually identified as the best.

The local tradition for food consumption calls for

three major'qrain types: yellow flint, white flint, yellow

flowery and white pop corn. The yellow flowery type yields

much less than the yellow flint, claiming a market price

that goes as high as two or three times the price of yellow

flint corn when it is scarce..

Of particular interest for improving the small farmers'

diet, the flowery.types are quite similar to the opaque-2

soft kernel varieties. At the experimental level, the maize

program offers a flowery endosperm Opaque-2 variety

introduced from Brazili. hat variety, however-, has a +flat

dented grain type that contrasts with the roundish smooth

grain of the local +flowery variety. The O~paque-2 varieties

with flowery endosperm, including those from the earlier

conversion program of CIMMYT, deserve to be tested and


It was reported to the team that the national

cooperative project CREDICOOP occasionally delivered

Page 39

hybrid seed from Brazil to small farmers some years ago.

Hybrids from Brazil and Arqentina respond well in the better

soils close to the Parana river, justifying .importation by

the big farmers, The amount of imported seed could not be

established because of the lack of official controls on the

importation of seeds from the neighboring countries.

~ _~_ __j I

Page 40


the present organization of the PIPA could result in an

appropriate mechanism to achieve the generation, validation

and transference of technology for the small farmer. The

established concept of adaptive research and the allocated

s.peci al. i st :in the. FPegi on. Centers c:rnst: i t:lue the pri ncipal

framework on which to expand activities. However, the

original conceived orientation of the P'TPA givnq decisive

participation to the small farmer in the process of

generating appropriate technology planned in the initial

stage of the project implementation has been limited as a

consequence of the stronger emphasis placed in reinforcing

existing components of SEAG's organization.

The lack of support and leadership in technical aspects

has contributed to the confusion created in the absence of

an organized technical operational strategy. Current

on-farm activities of PTPA are isolated efforts that

urgently require a clear orientation for the search and

adaptation of technological innovations. Another limitation

:i.n the MA G research orqani z nation .is that t.he secondIar-

priority assigned to the food crops typical of the small

farmers, restricts the strong scientific backing necessary

to support on-farm research.

Critical areas that requires special attention to

improve the efficiency of the project are the following.

6.1 Institutional components

Page 41

Human resources and logistical support are suggested to

be improved by the followiinq action:

A. Strengthening the Division of Technical Support by:

I) upgrading its hierarchical position at the.same level as

the Divisions of Administration, Communication, Programming

and Evaluation, and training, and 2) assigning personnel

with technical. ex-pertise superior to the level. of the C:RDL'

specialists. An international advisor with no less than

three years of actual experience on on-farm research is

strongly recommended to be contracted, if possible, for the

rest of the project.

B. 'raining of field personnel for specific technical

expertise on on-farm research, evaluation and demonstration

by participating in in-country and overseas short-courses

and visits to areas of excellence on the subject.

C. In order to update local knowledge and appreciation

on OFR activities and the farming systems approach, it is

recommended to request assistance of FSSP to carry on a

short (one-w~eek) seminar or workshops addressed to decision

makers, followed by an intensive course on applied

methodology on:r f:armini.g syvsti:ms and OFR for CR')F and

interested research staff.

6.2 Methodology for on-farm research

The following aspects need to br. taken into

consideration for a more meaningful use of resources.

A. The suqqested "new" Division of. technical Support

should take leadership at the regional level, in the

Page 42

identification of research opportunities, giving emphasis to

a more personal involvement in the field diagnosis instead

of a descriptive formal analysis of the region.

B. Increase the.potential of recommendation

extrapolation by means of more across-site exposure of

variables and treatments, even if done at the expense of the

number of replica. :tions

C. Fixing the non-experimental variables close to the

range of possibilities typical to the small farmers'


D. The definition of priorities for on-farm research

opportunities should distinguish two major objectives. One

objective pretends extra-reqional interpretation and should

consider standardization of field and experimental designs

fixing the nuiml:ber of variables and treatments within

experiments of common crops and/or similar practices across

the regions. The other objective is related to the specific

problems and needs of each region and should allow

flexibility in the design and conduction of the experiments.

E. .Upon planning procedures for technical support,,

more ahtention shou:ild be gi "en to the field technical

management of the experiments than to the administrative

handling of the technical issues.

6.3 Integration of research extenSion .activities

Handling limited research by the PTPA project should

consider the following strategies:

A. A priority in the involvement of CRDR's specialists

Page 43

and increase in number o+ the on-farm research activities,

especially those related to Adaptive Research Sub-Program

B. Planning research activities and discussing results

should be handled with a strong headquarter-regional

interaction, including joint working sessions at a national

level .

C. Under the limitation of resources it is recommended

to implement the suggested modifications on a sequential

basis considerign crops and/or regions as working units.

6.4 Considering the potential shown by CIMMYT's maize

experimental varieties a sub-program encouraging variety

evaluation across all regions under a systematic

experimental approach could serve as a catalyst to implement

the above suggestions. A similar approach with cassava

could also be considered.

Simultaneously, around these crops some of the CRDR's

could initiate the suggested process of identification of

research opportunities thr-ough an appropriate participation

of the "new" Technical Support Division utilizing the

information already available at the regional level.

6.5 To change the habit of the small farmers of saving,

their own seed the variety offered has to be better than

.their own. When new varieties are evaluated and accepted by

the farmers a strategy at the community level should be

implemented to encourage seed production by some

collaborating farmers, assisting them with basic seed,

portable cleaning equipment and counsel on seed production

technology. 'he selected farmers could then sell seed to

their neighbors at a premium price as a build-in incentive.


1. AID. El Pequeno Agricuttor. 1976 Asuncion, Paraguay.

2. AID. Small Farm Technology. Project Proposal.

(Fretes Ventre y Asociados. 1982 Informe de resultados.
Evaluacion del PTPA, Asuncion, Paraguay. Unpublished).

3. MAG, SEAG. Informe Anaual 1982. Asuncion, Paraguay.

4. MAG, SEAG3 .1980. Manual de Or ganizaci on y Procedimi entos.
PTPA. San Lorenzo, Paraguay,, Three volumes (Unpublished).

Page 2

ANNEX A Amenmenet: Organization Manual,
Section 5, Chapter I and II

Definicion de concepts y responsabilidades
referentes a trabajos de ident:i-icacion y transferencia
de tecnoloqias en el PTPA

iDy.vesti5g9i n contratda: Estudio realizado
exclusivamente por tecnicos de un institute experimental,
+acultacd v otro organismo especializado, para averiguar la
viabilidad de una practice o de un conjunto de ellas, o para
identi ficar los medios para solucionar un problema. Los
tecnicos del SEAG participant unicamente en la identification
del problema, e el suministro de in+ormaciones adicionales
que los investigadores soliciten y en la reception de los
resultados obtenidos.

iy.nv.t.9Q81cion adaPtat.ivj: Estudio realizado para
verificar, en condiciones de finca, los resiultados
provenientes de la investigation realizada a nivel de
institutes. Ella permitira seleccionar la practice mas
convenient de entire varias opciones promisorias, o
modi-icando eventualmente ciertos aspects de la information

Por basarse en investigaciones basics anteriores, se
limitara a someter a prueblos tratamientos mas eficientes,
comparandolos con un testigo que sera, pre+erentemente el
usual en las fincas de la zona. Esto significa que las
parcelas de investigation adaptative estaran un minimo de
tratamientos, con el numero adecuado de replicas que la
metodologia cientifica exige.

La responsabilidad principal de esta area recae en los
especialistas del SEAG, quienes requiriran la cooperation de
los especialistas de la investigation para asesorar lo
concerniente a diseno y eva ulacion dei ensayo en especially
de la canduccian del trabajo en general.

Por otra part, dara participation amplia a los agents
del SEAG de la zona y al agricul tor-cooperador en todas las
f'Eaes del trabajo.

Se recomienda extramar las precauci ones tendientes a
evitar la duplicacion de trahajos yi verificados a nivel de
finca, asi como la investigation de aspects que no ofrecen
un potential de bene-icio sustancial.

PrEoectog p.il. ot Emprendimiento destinado a introducir
y/o probar en una zona nuevos rubros, equipos, implements,
instalacion-es y tecnologias para probar combinaciones de
rubros tendientes a una mejor utilizacion de los recursos
productivos de la finca.

Page 3

Por su naturaleza original, vale decir, sin
antecedentesen la zona, las mas de las veces faltara el
elmento de comparacion a testiqo.

L..a responsabilidad principal de la instalacion y
conduccion del Proyecto corresponde a los especialistas del
SEA6, con la cooperation de los Agentes y la eventual
asesoria de especialistas de atras instituciones.

C h, I do n ,. tt .. Y. Trabajo destinado a -exhibi.r
ante los interesados los resultados que se obtienen con la
aplicacion de practices ya comprobadas a nivel de finca. Lz
practice "mejorada" que se desea introducir debera
compararse con la tradicionalmente empleada en la zona.

La responsabilidad principal del trabajo corresponde a
los Agentes de Extension, con la asesoria permanent de los
especialistas del SEAG.


Ing. Juan Molinas

Inq. Lino Morel

Ing. Miguel Ruiz Arce

Ing. Melciades Artecona

Ing. Ramon Artecona

Ing. Augusta Vasquez

Ing. Lopez-Portilla

Ing. Reinaldo Moreno

Ing. Nimia Achar

Ing. Miguel Aquino

Ing. Santander

Ing. Gonzalez

Ing. Quintana

Ing. Norma Villalba

Ing. Graciela Lopez

Dr. Baez

Sr. Aponte

Sr. Coronel

Ing. Candido Bogado

Ing. Leonardo Galeano

Ing. Arnulfo Alcaraz

Ing. Adalberto Cann

Dr. Jose Ocampos

.Ing Luis Il-dina

Ing, Maria Esther Sanchez

Ing. Guillermo Cespedes

Ing. Gustav Watkins














, E. '















Faqe 4

Ing. Norma Simpson

Ing. Juan Guerrero

Ing. Juan Sabela

Ing. Abe Pena

Ing. Oscar Carballo

Ing. Sinfordiano Paniagqua

Inq. Molina

Ing. Carlos Paniagua

Ing. Antonio Schaporaloff

Ing. Bertoni

Ing. Villalba

Ing. Caceres

Ing. Rosita Benitez

Ing. Mangano

Sr. Florentin Ayala

Sr. Rodriguez
















Page 5

ANNEX A (2nd part)

Responsabilidades y Caracteristicas de Labores de Investigacion
y Transferencias de Tecnologias en el PTPA

Actividades Responsabilidad Cooperacion Diseno
principal Tratamientos Replicas

Invest.Contratada Investigadores Especialistas Sin limita- Las necesarias
del SEAG cones

Invest.Adaptativa Especialistas Investigadores Limitado a Las necesarias
SEAG Agentes SEAG los mejores

Proyecto Piloto Especialistas Investigadores Unico No hay

Proy.Demonstrativo Agentes SEAG Productor Dos;Tradi- No hay
cional y me-



CRDR Aspecto Tecnico Responsible de la Fecha Terminaclon Estado Actual Resultado Futuro del Proyecto
Ejacucion Lugar (nicio



Azociacion Mandio

Asociacion Mandio

Diferentes Epocas de
Siembra de Malz

Densidad en Maiz

Asociaclorq aiz

.Ensayo de Fungicidat"
en tomate

Densidad en Malz

IAN (Pirebebuy) VIII/82 Vil/83




Asociacion Malz

Diferentes Epocas de
Siembra en Maiz

Densidad y Variedades
de Ajo

Introducclon de Materla-
les geneticos de habilla

Vill/82 VI1/83

V1/82 11/83

V1/82 11/83

VI/82 1/83

VI/82 XI1/82

VII/82 111/83

VI11/82 111/83

VI11/82 VI/83

IV/82 IX/82

VI1/82 XI/82

Creclmlonto en Man- Pendiente
dioca poroto Cosech.

Pasara a IA

Crecimlento en Man-
dioca, Maiz Cosech.





Analisis Es-

Analisis Es-

Analisis Es-

Informe final




CRDR Aspecto Tecnico Responsable de la Fecha Termlnaclon Estado Actual Resultado Futuro del Proyecto
Ejacucion Lugar inicio
- ;- -

Azociacion Mandio

Asociacion Mandio


Diferentes Epocas de
Siembra de Malz

Densidad en Maiz

Asociacion, Malz

Ensayo de Fungicidas
en tomate


Densidad en Malz


" Asociacion Maiz

Diferentes Epocas de
Siembra en Maiz

" Densidad y Variedades
de Ajo

f" tntroduccion de Materla-
les genetlcos de habilla

VI11/82 VII/83

VIII/82 VI1/83

VI/82 11/83

VI/82 11/83

V1/82 1/83

VI/82 XI1/82

VI1/82 111/83

VI11/82 111/83

VI11/82 VI/83

IV/82 1X/82

V11/82 XI/82

Creclmlonto en Man- Pendiente
dioca poroto Cosech.

Pasara a IA

Crecimiento en Man-
dioca, Maiz Cosech.





Analisis Es-

Analysis Es-

Analisis Es-

Informe final

Cordi lera

ANNEX B (3rd page)


CRDR Agencia Aspecto Tecnico Estado Actual y Actividades Realizados

Rend. Comparativo de
3 Var. de poroto

Met. de plantacionde

Concluido Envio de Analisis Estatistico

Desarrollo de la Planta. Seguimiento y



lordi llera




E.Ayala y



Esayo Comparative de
Variedades y Epoca de
Siembra en Soja

Ensayo comparative de
dif. dietas en Cerdo
de razas mejorados

Introduca de Var. de
Girasol p/alim. porci-
na y produce, de polen

Metodo de plantacion con
diferentes Var. de Man-

Ensayo de Variedades de



Culminado D R

Crecim. y desarrollo


'araguari Ybycui

Encalado de Cebolla

Crecim. y desarrollo

Ensayo de 3 Var. de Ajo Crecim. y desarrollo

:entra I


i I I

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs